skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One advantage of being on Kickstarter is the traffic. How did Lockitron get the initial traffic and buzz?
Turn Dropbox folders into websites
Ubuntu has multitouch gestures on an entry-level Dell -- works fine. I prefer a Mac, but use a mouse only when it's "docked" on a stand and an external keyboard.
Lockitron : A simple product but amazing launch..
Show HN: weekend project to capture user tests from friends
I've been working some software to make capturing feedback cheap and easy. I think it can be much less expensive if we put our friends and family to use.
How about a little full disclosure? The author of the cited article is Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, so not exactly an unbiased source.

Aside from that, this whole article is one strawman after another. I don't know anyone who supports copyright and believes it to be the only way for creative folks to make money.

The creative argument in favour of copyright is simply that more useful works get generated and distributed with it than without it.

The economic argument is also very simple: the people making those works need to put food on the table. Despite all the rhetoric, nothing is stopping them from doing that in other ways right now, yet relatively few people actually are.

Really, all the anti-copyright people have to do to make a rock solid argument for their case is show that industrial-scale creative work is more effective using alternative business models rather than relying on copyright. There's an entire world of creative industries and bazillions in cash going into those industries, so finding more than an occasional study and isolated success story shouldn't be that hard... if their position is actually correct.
Show HN: panning lightbox for photo panoramas
Click on a panorama here: http://shuw.github.com/photos

Source: https://github.com/shuw/flickfastr
You're making no sense. Moving the SSH port is a trivial way to reduce your attack surface (undirected bulk scans go for 22).
Not a fan of progressive myself, but it should be noted that iOS (at least iOS5), will downsample jpgs larger than 2MP; saving as progressive apparently circumvents this 'feature.'
1. How are you going to measure user behavior directly?

2. I wish I could have taken you up on your bet. It has nothing to do with first party apps...

Here is one of the questions they asked:

Do you get news on your tablet...?

A Mostly through a web browser
B Mostly through an app
C Both equally
D No answer
(3) Facebook does not run nuclear reactors or bank systems. There is a high incentive to switch from buggy bank systems. There is little incentive to switch from buggy social network websites.

I'm arguing that facebook wants to run something even more important than a banking system. For example, Facebook wants me to share posts that are only visible to me. Such a post could contain secrets that could have huge consequences on my life and life of others' if they became public. It is pretty clear from facebook's history that each year, they want you to share more of such private data.

They started with you being able to share your drunk party pics. They are headed towards actually becoming something like PayPal. Really, facebook should behave more like a bank than just-another-social-network if it wants its users remain confident. In this respect, looking at their past success to as proof that all is well is a mistake because I am certain facebook intends to be much more than what it is five years from now.
It's basically a hobbyist's tool. If you wanted to make a simple circuit that would produce a "phaser" noise, it was great. If you were designing something that needed a stable oscillator you couldn't use a 555 because the oscillating frequency would vary tremendously with temperature. Same with the length of the pulse if you used it as a one-shot.

At the company I worked in the late '80s the frustrated management banned its use altogether after a series of failures in the field were traced to designs that relied on the 555 to be more stable than it really was.
It's not all about the quality of the compiler. C compilers have to deal with a language that has terrible semantics for aliasing, and in which cross module information flow is usually limited to what programmers type into header files (although this is slowly beginning to change with LTO and WPO). This is a significant disadvantage for an optimizing compiler. In contrast, JS implementations have the entire program text and can optimise, say, calling conventions however they like.

JS and Lua also have disadvantages, such as their inferior (but memory safe) representation of data, so I would not be surprised if JS were faster for some problems and slower for others.
If you are interested in this are I recommend reading the actual study and not a yahoo republication of an article from mashable about a study on Pew's website.

"The Future of Mobile News" (The actual study)
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/future_mobile_news

PDF:
http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/Futureo...

"The Future of Mobile News – A PEJ Infographic"
http://features.journalism.org/2012/09/30/the-future-of-mobi...
The problem with doing loser pays in the US is that in the US we use private civil litigation to handle things that would be dealt with by government regulators and agencies in other countries. For instance, we rely on civil litigation to enforce consumer protection and civil rights laws to a larger extent than others do. Loser pays in the US would discourage a lot of meritorious lawsuits from individuals against large companies, because there is always a significant risk of losing even if you have a good case--a jury can be a crapshoot.
Imagine if, before intellectual property, you put 20 smart people in a room, and tell them to come up with solutions to add incentives for creative works. None of them would have come up with "Hey! Why don't we grant inventors monopolies over inventions! We could increase the ammount and quality of inventions by limiting what others can invent!". No one would ever think that's a good idea. It's completely backwards and counter intuitive. They would come up with things like y-combinator, angel funds, startup incubators. Or straight up government money investments. These are the obvious ideas that come up when you're trying to figure how to incentive ideas. You incentive ideas by investing in them, not by limiting them.

And of course, as most people here probably already know, that's not how IP was invented. It was not a conclusion from trying to come up to a solution for investing in ideas. No sane human being would have thought that was a solution. IP was invented as a monarchy monopoly to give power to the king. The "but it's good for innovation" meme was an excuse invented later when they figured they could actually make a lot of money from it, so those who were profiting off monopolies had to find an excuse to keep it.

It's so mind boggling to watch so many discussions where people ask "the ultimate hard question" of "but how else could be possibly incentive ideas without copyright???". C'mon, it's so straight-forward and we've been doing it for centuries. YC alone has done much more for promoting innovative creative works than copyright has done since it's invention. Do you really care about investing in ideas? Then put your money where your mouth is, become an angel investor, and stop pretending it's a hard problem to solve.
Please ... this article is trolling copyright holders. Each point is weak, easy to dismantle, and unsubstantiated. I started to write a long response and decided perhaps this isn't the forum, but I am surprised to see this on the front of hacker news.
great idea, thanks for the feedback.
Las radiaciones de alta y baja frecuéncia una sentencia de muerte
It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing.

Actually, given what I said, you're right to say that.

When I said "If X, then it follows that Y," I left off the fact that not only X, but also X->Y, relies on a vast amount of inductive generalization from the facts of reality (including facts about human beings, value pursuit, etc.). Although I put it in the form of a deductive statement, the argument is not actually deductive.

I think the examples you gave are extremely relevant, good examples, that are based in reality and need to be dealt with (and can be). Of course, we're not going to induct an entire philosophical system in the comments of HN.

I would urge you to check out the book I referenced earlier. If you put enough effort into it, you will find that a rational philosophy (including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics) not only can be discovered, but has been.
> For Node and V8?

I don't know, I use neither. I'm just saying, there are profiling tools which handle the "One Big Function" pattern.
As an EVE player I don't usually make a habit of defending it so sorry if this comes across as "fanboyish". I'm in one of the largest alliances in the game and general consensus is that it can be "a terrible game", but there is so many things that are wrong or is just misunderstood in that post that it would take me all day to go through them individually.

Setting aside all the inaccuracies and misunderstandings of basic game mechanics in it (which is in part due to the steep learning curve of the game I admit, so it's somewhat understandable) EVE Online at it's core is ultimately a geek social hierarchy with a thin veil of "science fiction video game" masked over it.

Nowhere in the post did it mention ever interacting with other players, let alone leaving the safety of high security space to join one of the established social powerhouses in player controlled space. This is where the real "game" takes place and which is why the retention rate of new players is so extremely low, they don't get to see it.

If you are wondering why people keep playing this game, it isn't because they are stuck in some kind of "WoW-like" grind trance and just want to see a progress bar inch forward. It's ultimately the chance to ruin another social groups day and proclaim that your social group or culture "is better then theirs". You can visibly view a generated map of player controlled space[1] and say "we own this, we took it from you". The large super capital ships used in these battles are also worth upwards of $1,000 USD. A battle not long ago[2] resulted in the destruction of somewhere around 13 to 15 thousand dollars worth of capital ships.

Ultimately, EVE Online is a social experiment first, a war simulator for privileged first world geeks second, and a science fiction video game somewhere down at the bottom of the list.

[1] http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.png

[2] http://themittani.com/news/supers-tackled-station
There are other ways than patents to get rewards for your work, but patents are a non-starter in principle. Just because you thought of something first does not give you a right to stop someone else from thinking of it second. It's really very simple.
Disclaimer: I have slightly skimmed the article and I don't exactly know what your usage of the word 'copyright' implies.

I am making this post anyway because I think you'll benefit from these links I mentioned in an earlier post.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4591253
Programmer is a distinct job from software developer.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...

2010 Median Pay	$90,530 per year $43.52 per hour

Number of Jobs, 2010	913,100

Job Outlook, 2010-20	30% (Much faster than average)

Employment Change, 2010-20	270,900
I think nothing less than a revolution in the way humans think is going to solve these problems. I mean, science solves problems better than witchcraft for a reason. Mankind is still using the equivalent of witchcraft in the legal realm.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/ <= good source of case studies

Also, your complaint about them being 'strawmen' is true, but makes no sense. They are common 'myths, which is to say exaggerations of things people claim everyday. You yourself make several of his 'myths' in your post.

> The creative argument in favour of copyright is simply that more useful works get generated and distributed with it than without it.

Translation:

> Myth: Without the incentive of possibly getting money, nobody will go into artistry and create.

> The economic argument is also very simple: the people making those works need to put food on the table. Despite all the rhetoric, nothing is stopping them from doing that in other ways right now, yet relatively few people actually are.

Translation:

> Myth: With free sharing, nobody will spend money on entertainment.

They aren't supposed to be perfect quoted arguments from real live people; just push back on common rhetoric.
I had this _exact_ idea when Glacier came out, and even registered a domain with a splash page. Still thinking about building it but lacking time. I was looking at specifically storing RAW files for photographers and generating low-res versions to show in some sort of library.
This is similar to videogames resale (Another area under heavy attack by the publishing industry).

If a title is middling, but not great, people will still buy it, and hope to sell it for cash or store credit once "done". They will experiment with games they're not certain about because they're not "Stuck" with the original.

People who aren't willing to take the risk that the game is worth full price can then buy the resold version at a lower price later. They take a "Newness" and time premium, but save money.

If resale isn't possible, fewer people will buy the original game because it's a riskier proposition. This means both that there are less primary sales, but ALSO that there are less people discussing the game (They've not played it, they can't talk about it). People who would have bought the game secondhand, possibly liked it and been encouraged to buy the next title by the same developers firsthand simply won't buy it, so there's even LESS word of mouth.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-- John Carmack.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010124060000/www.voodooextreme....
No. There's an important distinction as to when you catch the marketing wind. Facebook was executing like there was no tomorrow before they got any kind of attention like Diaspora had before they wrote any code.
Ah, I loved the 555. I used it when it first came out to build blue boxes [1]. Of course, the frequency drifted all over the place and I was constantly having to retune the things. Even so, it was such a fun and easy chip to work with.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box
Instead of replacing the SEC, why have it at all? What service do they provide that I so badly need?
Copyright isn't about incentivizing innovation. It's about preventing free-riding. You think any sensible VC would have invested in Microsoft if there was nothing preventing Tandy, etc, from buying a single IBM machine, copying the OS off the disks, and selling as many machines with Windows loaded as they wanted without paying any licensing fees to Microsoft?

As for YC, etc... What a ridiculous bit of self-important exaggeration. Scribd, AirBnB, Discus... Oh my god all the innovation! More innovation than has ever been made possible by the patent laws or the copyright laws over the course of history! Seriously, I think YC, etc, is great, but let's not forget that there is a whole world of technology out there, and internet startups are one small niche. In most technology fields, all the money YC has ever handed out would barely make a dent in the capital requirements of bringing a product even to the prototype stage.

Also, let's not rewrite history here. Intellectual proponents of copyright and patent law include people like Thomas Jefferson, who none would accuse of being a monarchist.
555 was the first IC I played at school when I was 12. Was always amazed with how many things you could do with it.
When you know the right pieces to the puzzle, amazing things can be created. Thanks for taking the time to show even more cool tools for future tinkering!
It's not the discussions around "I came up with an idea" that are at risk here -- it's the discussions that may precipitate ideas that might be patentable. Those are far more nuanced, and harder to present as evidence of invention, or obviousness.
What would you say about the tens of millions of Americans who are educated, religious, and give hundreds of millions of dollars to build schools, clinics, and missions around the world?

Are they short-sighted or lacking compassion?

I think this kind of binary political thinking is the most insidious thought virus we face. Far more dangerous than whether or not someone believes in evolution, because it separates us and makes us believe that the "others" have traits that they really don't have. It's awful.
I've had a quick look at some of the week 1 lessons (which are up already) and it looks like it provides a great introduction to networking; also seems fairly practical to me.
E.g. have a look at this one: "A day in the life of a packet" [Week 1] ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0TJ8szp4AE
I remember learning the basics of networking in 1989 from the
"The Linux Network Administrator's Guide", which is/was part of the Linux Documentation Project.

It focuses on the software aspect of things, but IMHO it is still a good read for introduction.

My favorite book on the topic (covers hardware and software) is:

"Computer Networks" by Larry L. Peterson & Bruce S. Davie.
hello, can i ask for an invite? my address is rymngh[at]gmail.com..
Really the nice thing about ggplot2 is that each of those figures were probably like 1 line of code. Having a DSL designed for your data analysis is awesome.
I feel compelled to point out a clever comment (not my own) on the linked page:

"127 kOhm * 470 uF silence for the fellow."

i.e. using those values for the external resistor and capacitor would result in a moment of silence (followed by another and another, I suppose)
People seem to miss this. Eventually people will supplement different niche activities on a monolith for something else, and then suddenly they don't need the main thing that much anymore.

A gourmet supermarket just opened near where I live, between that, the local fruit shop and local butcher (with the odd trip to an asian supermarket to top up on that type of thing), my visits to the supermarket (which is also close to me) are probably down to a 3rd of what they once were. Without me realising it or doing anything conscious to reduce my patronage, the amount of money I give the supermarket has drastically plummeted through small, cumulative changes in behaviour.
>The author of the cited article is Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, so not exactly an unbiased source.

Source bias is a concern when the source is supplying unverifiable facts. When a source is supplying reasoning, it can be evaluated for consistency and validity independent of the source and attacking the source is just the ad hominem fallacy.

Incidentally, who do you think would be making anti-copyright arguments, Christopher Dodd?

>Aside from that, this whole article is one strawman after another.

A strawman is when you take a weak argument that opponents never made and proceed to knock it down, then use the failure of the weak argument to argue that a stronger argument is also wrong. In this case, the positions being attacked are ones that have actually been taken by industry supporters at various points during lobbying efforts to pass copyright legislation. Perhaps there are stronger arguments in favor of copyright than the ones the industry has been putting forward, but then let's hear those in the halls of Congress and stop hearing the ones that are so ridiculous that you think they're strawman arguments.

>Really, all the anti-copyright people have to do to make a rock solid argument for their case is show that industrial-scale creative work is more effective using alternative business models rather than relying on copyright.

The only real way to actually test the hypothesis that creativity would thrive in today's economy in the absence of copyright is to have the absence of copyright for a while and see what happens. For example, how else can you tell what derivative works would be created if permission was not required to produce them for commercial gain? (And hey, if we try not having copyright for a decade or two and it turns out badly, we can always put it back.)
Cloud services market to surpass $326 million in 2012: Gartner ~ Read Custom Web
We act like psychology was ever a legitimate science in the first place...
The 555 design contest winners (from 4/2011):
http://www.555contest.com/2011/04/the-555-contest-winners-an...

I especially like the adding machine made from 102 555s:
http://www.vk2zay.net/article/258
Camenzind went on to have a long and successful career, but none of his subsequent designs would impact the world like his simple little timer. In fact, IEEE Spectrum named it one of 25 microchips that shook the world in their May 2009 issue.

-- Continued from above. Interesting, note the incentives vs the output.
Yes, Master, indeed.
Cognitive psychology is quite legitimate. You should read some of Kahneman work. He's one of the pioneers in putting both psychology and economics on a firm empirical footing.
I may be horrifying but rediscovering something is not the same as inventing it.